How to Tell Whether a TLD is a Generic TLD or a Proprietary TLD

Simply enter the name of TLD into the browser bar and then add .NAME

In the .NAME registry, the TLD name for generic domain names are reserved words and cannot be register — so if you get no response, then the TLD is probably a true generic TLD (otherwise, it is probably a proprietary domain name). ;)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

The Mystery of Self-Organisation

Everywhere we look, we identify organisations ordered top-down (by fiat), or via “grass roots” movements,… — or, if we have no clue how a specific order came about, we simply say it came about “by itself”.

There was, for example, much discussion about such topics a little over a century ago, when people were interested to know how evolution works. Why do giraffes have long necks? By “natural selection”, it is said — pretty much: via self-organisation. Of course one could also say that the trees grew high, and that is why giraffes have long necks. This begs the question: Why did the trees grow high? And perhaps the best answer might be: Well, not all of them did, but the smaller trees got eaten up by the giraffes. There is no end to this — we simply don’t know.

Ah, but here come some hackers with computers — will they solve such questions with big data? No. They have not even yet jotted down whether the Earth revolves on its axis in a clockwise direction, or a counter-clockwise direction. If some of them are reading this and are getting up to run and record this fact, maybe half of them will write down “clockwise” and the rest will write down “counter-clockwise”. Could this fact (about the earth’s rotation — not whether it is deemed to be clockwise or counter-clockwise) be the cause of all evolutionary processes? Perhaps — after all: presumably the Earth has been rotating this way the entire time during which evolution has happened, and there are no data to contradict this possibility (therefore, some might argue: that is proof! ;) )

Why have both Germanic and Romance languages developed the way they have? Is it evolution? Self-organization? …? Your guess is as good as mine! Or maybe it was the rotation of the Milky Way galaxy? :P

In some languages, animal doctors have a specific name (such as “veterinarian”). Sometimes, there are people who care for specific animals who are not referred to as animal doctors or veterinarians, but by other names — such as “beekeeper”. Yet as far as I know, beekeepers are not to blame if certain species of bees become extinct. Does any of this make any logical sense? No. :|

It seems to be difficult for humans to accept that there are some processes over which they have little or no control — either individually or collectively. The evolution of languages is a good example. Imagine two hypothetical people: Mister X and Mister Y. Mister X and Mister Y might consider themselves to be so great that it doesn’t matter to them whether you call them a veterinarian, an animal doctor, a beekeeper, a banker or a politician. They are both capable of working, but maybe they do not wish to be referred to as “just another worker”. They consider themselves to be “Mister X” and “Mister Y” — so you should refer to them by “their” names.

OK, fine.

But what if someone’s animal is sick? Then that person might search for a solution — would the person say “oh, I know: I will go to Mr. X, because he’s a nice guy and I think he knows a lot”? Perhaps — but what if Mr. X knows nothing about bees, or even about animals in general, … their health, their treatment, etc.? Oh, that would be sad, then the animal might die. :|

No one must refer to an “animal doctor” as a “veterinarian” (or vice versa), and the fact many people do use these (or similar) terms is not by decree or fiat, or as a grass roots movement,… — it simply happens… by self-organisation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off

The most sinister of all retard media hoaxes is the idea that someone has “arrived” in society when they are mentioned in a prominent retard media publication

This hoax is of fundamental importance in retard media — because if retard media makers are able to convince people of this, then they can get people to pay money (i.e., buy advertising space) to appear (in the hope of thereby “arriving” in society) which is the entire business model.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off

Knowing how to spell a word is not down to some random person’s opinion — or is it?

It’s understood that Hollywood sells Californication…

Californication

“Californication” (Red Hot Chili Peppers)

Online literacy is lacking — in particular: Most people have little or no idea of how the “title” idea translates from print to the corresponding concept on the World-Wide Web. Indeed, there may in fact be no corresponding term at all.

In the print era, the mass production of texts dictated that each text needed a unique name. Many thousands of words came to be collectively known as “Moby Dick” — and not just any “Moby Dick”, but specifically Herman Melville’s “Moby Dick”.

There is probably no online equivalent for this concept. The file path or directory structure to locate / reference a file has little to do with the construction of a webpage. One single webpage is usually made up of dozens — if not hundreds — of files. The webpage may have a “title” tag in HTML, but there is no limit to the number of HTML pages that can have the same “title” tag, the same “author” tag and so on. There is no control whatsoever of the use of such tags — anyone can give any webpage the “title” tag “Moby Dick” and the “author” tag “Herman Melville“. HTML tags are nothing more than a meaningless farce.

It is particularly ironic, that one of the most valuable “Internet” companies is a search engine that uses such ridiculous data to “organize all the world’s information”… — and 99% of people are so illiterate that they would probably not even get this joke. When people finally wake up and smell the coffee, you had better hope that you have already divested your portfolio of all so-called “tech” stocks, because otherwise you will probably learn a very hard lesson.

The way information is organized online from a legal point of view is an entirely different matter. All information is hierarchically organized in domains, and at each level the authority is inherited from that of the immediately higher level. Most people are completely oblivious of this simple fact, and they actually believe that what they refer to as “their” Facebook page actually belongs to them (and not Facebook, Inc).

Perhaps the most straightforward way of explaining this to the by and large illiterate masses is to compare the web to a set of dictionaries. Just as there is a “Webster’s Dictionary” and also a “Oxford English Dictionary”, so too there is “.com” and “.net”. Indeed: There are many more dictionaries, and there are also many more top-level domains. When someone professes to understand English, they would probably adhere to what most people consider to be English — in other words: In the case of American English, Webster’s Dictionary; In the case of Oxford English, the Oxford Dictionary. For both cases — for dictionaries as well as for top-level domains — each string is given one entry. All of the information about that string (within that dictionary or that top-level domain) is contained in that entry — there are no duplicates. Likewise, just as the team that creates Webster’s Dictionary may be a different team than the team that creates Oxford English Dictionary, so too the team that controls the .com registry may be a different team than the team that controls the .net registry.

This is, more or less, how domains are legally recognized… — but at least 9 times out of 10, people will believe that domains are the online equivalent of “Herman Melville” and/or “Moby Dick”. Likewise: At least 9 out of 10 people believe that entering a string like “Herman Melville” or “Moby Dick” at the website google.com means something more than entering the string somewhere else. Indeed, there are now laws in Europe that aim to regulate what can happen when entering strings at google.com — so perhaps “Google results” are no longer entirely up to the government of the United States of America (as Hillary Clinton once declared them to be). ;)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

The Uneducated Masses Will Probably Choose the Free Lunch

There are primarily two reasons for this — both of which are based on the limited literacy skills of the uneducated masses:

  1. They can’t really comprehend what the fine print means;

  2. They can’t seem to learn from history.

In the Twentieth Century, educated elites — the 1% — learned how to manipulate the masses by duping them with “Free Lunch” offers. The ironic result is that those societies which are based on relatively naive masses are becoming increasingly prone to “falling for” marketing tricks that result in increasingly corrupt organizations. Widespread lobbying is one good example of this grotesque outgrowth, leading to a phenomenon of “you get the results that you deserve” (cf. the movie “Idiocracy”).

This phenomenon is actually a vicious cycle, as the marketing tricks primarily appeal to the uneducated (as described above), and therefore promoting widespread education is shunned, because that would make it more difficult to dupe the masses with propaganda. This is probably the main reason why it took several centuries after the invention of the printing press for public schools to be established across Europe.

Perhaps oneĀ  good way out of this vicious cycle is to make it clear to people that every time they are offered a “special deal“, they are actually being duped. Indeed, often the people who fall for such tricks themselves think they are indeed getting a free lunch (or at least a “good offer”), so their motivation is actually to get ahead by taking advantage of such “offers“. Once they realize how dishonest and unfair these tactics are, they will presumably be less prone to fall for these marketing tricks.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Why Collocation Matters

If you haven’t read “Words as Puzzle Pieces” yet, then please check out that post first.

Obviously collocation is the very crux of “solving” a puzzle. It also forms the basis of frames (frame theory) and scripts, which are crucial elements not only of stories and storytelling, but also of information storage and retrieval (whether using automated/”artificial” information systems or “natural” human psychology).

Language (and in particular here: written text) can be broken down into pieces. A story can be divided into sections, paragraphs are made up of sentences, and words are constructed out of even smaller morphological elements. Moving from smaller constructs to wider contexts, relationships become weaker: The words that make up a sentence are more constrained (by each other) than the sentences that make up a paragraph.

In a similar manner, words not only constrain each other but also implicate elements (as in “John rolled down the hill” could be interpreted as roughly equivalent [logically] to “John rolled John down the hill”). Sometimes, listeners can reliably predict the last word of a sentence before a speaker utters it (and/or before they read the last word of the sentence in a written text).

Noam Chomsky addressed this issue with his famous line regarding the notion that “thoughts sleeping furiously” seems grammatically incorrect — these words simply do no fit together in a similar manner that puzzle pieces to not correctly fit (in other words: they simply do not seem to collocate agreeably — in much the same way that arguments in a formula, algorithm or equation also need to match up in order to make sense).

Oddly, it seems intuitively plausible that such complements (or “grammatically available” arguments in a sentence) might be in a competitive relationship in an information retrieval setting — such thatĀ  a website like hotels.com might prefer to offer a user flights rather than to send them to flights.com, or books.com might not be interested in linking to a website about authors, publishers, or other implicated or semantically closely related websites. In other words: Relationships that might seem obvious may actually be underrepresented among the links between closely related websites.

One way to measure the sophistication of advanced information systems might be the degree to which they facilitate links between such “obvious” relationships — between such extremely closely correlated, more or less closely collocated phenomena.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Words as Puzzle Pieces

There are photo shops that will turn any picture into a puzzle — you can probably find hundreds of such services online. One thing that recently occurred to me is that if you took two (or more) pictures and sent them to the same service to turn these into jigsaw puzzles, then perhaps you could mix up (or mash up) 2 pictures with each other. With more pictures, you could make even more varied mosaics.

There’s a saying that a picture is worth 1000 words — and if you turn a picture into a 1000-piece puzzle, then I guess it sort of becomes a 1000-word statement (maybe a very long sentence, or perhaps a more complex structure — a composition, an essay, etc.).

Just as I can say “a green car drove down the street”, I can also say “a red car drove down the street”. In this sense, the words “green” and “red” are interchangeable puzzle pieces. Linguists (e.g. Noam Chomsky) have written about how words sometimes don’t seem to fit properly in sentences — I guess that would be like trying to fit a puzzle piece in a place that doesn’t match or fit together the way a puzzle should.

I don’t know why I am fascinated with this metaphor — maybe it’s because I also view information on the Internet as being a distributed but nonetheless coherent whole. For example: the information at twitter.com can be seen as one piece, the information at hotels.com can be seen as another piece. Both of these pieces (of the Internet) might have something to say about “luxury” or “vacation” (and indeed: I expect a site like luxury.com and/or vacation.com might also have something to say about “twitter” or “hotels”). Different pieces of the Internet could be woven together to create different statements, different images, different mosaics, different perspectives on what might be either one and the same objective reality or perhaps simply different points of view.

What a complicated web we weave!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Computers, Humans, Economics, Marketing, Logic and Psychology

Computers are machines that apply algorithms according to some sort of logic… — and in this way they function in a way quite analagous to economic theory.

Humans are beings that use their brains according to psychological quirks they have acquired… — and in this way they function in a way quite analagous to what marketing tactics might predict.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

If you want any more, you can suit yourself

Froggie went a courtin

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off

Maybe love is when you value someone’s so-called “subjective opinion” more than so-called “objective facts”

This is just a more or less random idea that occurred to me the other day. I don’t know of anything that might “support” it, but I also have not yet thought of anything that might refute it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off